Only ZM lens designs were unrestricted by the mirror box, all other designs require 45-50mm clearance between the sensor and the rear lens element.

No, the Contax G lenses were autofocus Zeiss lenses for the Contax G rangefinder which I used to shoot with. In terms of modern lenses the Touits are there too.

The E-mount and X-mount mirrorless mounts are simple a baffle around the ZM mount, if you want to visualize it as such - with added electronics.

In what way? The Touit lenses are 12mm f2.8, 32mm f1.8 and 50mm f2.8 macro. All focus to 30cm or less (and only cover APS-C)... None of those focal length/aperture combinations exist in ZM (infact 2 of those focal lengths don't exist in ZM at all) - and all ZM bar the 15mm have a minimum focus distance of 50cm or more and cover a 35mm sensor.

If you change the mount, electronics, focal length, aperture, minimum focal distance and optical formula then I think you'd have to be clutching at straws or mis-informed to be saying that the they mounts are a simple baffle around an existing lens...

Because the mirror box lenses have to be retrofocal - and if you're moving the rear element forward then so will these (although that crossover will start later if there is a "midpoint" version - but then what's the relationship to the ZM?

From a Zeiss' perspective, I would consider ZM, E/FE and X/FX mount as potential targets for these lenses. If electronic coupling is not needed or can be limited to e.g. EXIF only, then these lenses have three target groups.

To me the logical ones are still the Contax G lenses unless there was a legal issue and Kyocera own the lens designs now or something?

And yes, ZM represents Zeiss M mount, but this is their mirrorless mount. ZM-derived, mirror-less derived - they are all similar in that they can place the rear element closer, enabling less retrofocal distortion, and smaller lens designs.

It's not Zeiss's mount at all - it's Leica's... Yes - your other points are valid - but M mount is already a deeper mount than E-mount - it doesn't matter whether the mount forces retrofocal or not if the sensor demands it

Even with moving the rear element outward, and perhaps switching lens designs from Biogons to other, I would still consider it ZM-derived.

OK - this is where I'm confused - why would it be more ZM derived than Touit, ZE, ZF, ZA, cine, or any of the other ranges of lenses that Zeiss already produce or have produced in the past?